User talk:W./TestSite

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Reasons for and proposals to designing a new CC-template[edit]

  • Template:Pink_CC should become a personnally adaptable substituion (allowed in WP as an alternative) for cc-by-sa-3.0 templates, i.e. it claims for cc-by-sa-3.0, but should be user-editable like Template:Attribution, but with one more editable text field than Template:Attribution.
  • Earlier COM:VP talks on this were Licensing and Picture Resolution and Changing licenses? (archived May 2008)
  • Any photographers I ever talked to are usually keen on that (C)-sign, and people not involved in free licensing are hardly ever aware of CC and their symbol.
    Therefore, (C) should be implemented into the template as I did below with the "mistreated" Attribution template (Note: the dummy for the proposed sign meanwhile being useless, I overwrote it with "ThinkPink"pic).
    Frame and background should be in pink tones -- an allusion to Californan "Think Pink" ;)
    Frame in same colour as (C), BG brightest possible (even brighter than Attribution's green).
  • As any people I try to attract to WP tell me they're fed up with all those "explanatory" but more often confusing links, please do not give within the template more than one link. Standard cc-by template is a BadExample.
    Some people are willing to "donate" a little piece of their work (sometimes, when by chance asked for it the right time), but never are/were willing to have to "study wikipedia" first. What the license conditions are, and what it's all about, is made sufficiantly clear by the official cc-by-3.0-pages (which most of them will not really read, either). I'm convinced WP has lost a lot of valuable (lower-res) documental photographic material due to its clumsyness provoking "sophisticated" explanations which put to flight "contributors in spe" from the pool of goodwilling professionals. There has to be c.r.e.a.t.e.d a balance "effort"--"success", an obvious "win-win-situation". A pro (or anyone) gives a pic, and he / she ist credited under fair conditions, and at resonable expense (which means: Upload according a simply explained step-by-step procedure, and no extra stuff to read.
  • A good example on bad beginning is User_talk:Galbrima (most of it in German), which for imo no understandable reason some user wanting to help continued on his own talk page, followed by confuse and useless edits of one single file in question, done by the eventually most confused newbie -- see file history.
    All this due to horrifying bot-notices with kind-of-threats (I hope this is English -- it's from LEO) containig dozens of links, followed by dozens of mails and talks, or, rather, time-waisting chat.
  • For a beginning, if such template is manageable at all, I'd provide a German version, too, as I meet here more Germen speakers than ecpected who are very reluctant to read English "How-To"s.

WeHaWoe 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I had asked Rocket000 on doing this job, and he agreed immediately. (Above text was re-edited now to make it more clear.) --WeHaWoe 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Template:Pink_CC[edit]

This green-background makeshift is just a layout, done by misusing "Attribution" template. I can't do better myself. Text should be like suggested in #Languages.

Pink CC.gif The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
Template:Attribution/lang

Layout+Text v.0a for Pink_CC/en (I did not manage to layout the table properly)

{{Pink_CC|User:Someuser|Fullname|text1=Required attribution|text2=More text, possibly including a link.}}

  • It would be great when field "User:Someuser" could be filled automatically.
  • All others are to be filled as optional, but an automatically preset text for "text1=" like "User:Someuser, wikipedia" or similar would be great.
Pink dummy
Pink CC.gif

I, S. Tuned, the copyright holder of this file, licensed it under cc-by-3.0. In short: you are free to distribute and modify this file as long as you attribute me as follows: Photograph by S. Tuned licensed cc-by-3.0. For non-free higher resolution non-free versions of this file, please contact Google


{{Pink_CC/lang}}

Languages[edit]

See User:WeHaWoe/Pink_CC/de and User:WeHaWoe/Pink_CC/fr

Comments[edit]

Not bad. A couple issues, though. I don't think we should use a pink ©. I get the thinking behind it and it makes perfect sense, but some may confuse it with the big red one. A major reason we have very little deviation from the commonly used icons is because we're multilingual. People who don't speak any of the languages the license is in can get a good idea from the image itself. Alternatives could be Blue copyright.svg (which stands out nicely) or even the all-business classic Copyright.svg. Another issue is, it's confusing as to if it's under CC-BY or {{Attribution}} which are two different things. Also, you never mentioned what version of CC-BY. Rocket000 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that note "This is just a layout, of course!" Now I get it. :) Rocket000 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I got the framework done. The color and wording can easily be changed. I recommend using those logos but they can change too. The point is, the artists will not be using this template directly. It's what I'll use to make a really customized template for them. I just need the info, then they'll have a personalized template in their userspace. All they will have to do is put is {{User:Name/License}}. That's it. No parameters or anything. Rocket000 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uuups: Do I understand right that it would not be possible to make such a template "user-editable"? No chance at all? (whwö)
Well, it already is. What do you think I did?  ;) I thought my goal was to make something they didn't have to edit because not knowing wiki syntax might discourage them. They could edit anything they want. Rocket000 07:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed, but when re-arrangint text I lost the timestamp on this -- it was before I saw your version in cation, of course. 8)) WeHaWoe 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocket_CC[edit]

Template:Pink CC

{{Pink CC|User:W.|whwö|"Mention Rocket"|[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W./TestSite see here]|<small>Donate to Wikipedia! Donate pics, manpower or money. They'd take anything, sometimes.</small>|category=}}

All are technically optional, but at the very least the first parameter should be filled in.

  • 1 = User:Username
  • 2 = Displayed name
  • 3 = Specify attribution.
  • 4 | link = Website link for more/higher-quality images
  • 5 | text = Another line for whatever

Sorry that I did not notice but now (i.e., 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)) that you had given that link above a while ago. Looks fine, with some exeptions (text removed, part of it pasted n appropriate place to clarify the talk):

Icons[edit]

Black (C) is imo inappropriate, suggesting "hard" copyright which would be disallowed in WP. I meanwhile checked the blue one, is inappropriate too (see my today's note in the image description). Stay with the green for a makeshift, in case you dislike to use any of my GIFs (see below). But a colour different from those would be preferable, to indicat the slightly different usage. So, if Pink (a brighter shade than my dummie's) is still depreciated, Gray (the shade as used for PD) would do.

As my "Pink" proposal seemed welcome to / was acclaimed by a few artists I'd asked on it by mail, recently, I'm going to upload 2 more makeshifts within app. 1 hr from now.WeHaWoe 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you're set on pink, I'll make you pink SVG. Rocket000 07:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There you go. If you want a different shade, let me know. Rocket000 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Align of Text and Icons[edit]

I'd personnally by far prefer the longer text to be left-aligned. "Centered" would however do fine for the (2 -- 999 ;) languages to follow ;) This might become a REAL "KISS" [I'm talking about the acronym] template (for users) if not depreceated by the community. (15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)WeHaWoe)


The signs could well be smaller (30px would do) in order to place them one above the other, (C) above. The other one is hardly known to outsiders. Are you BTW sure that the third one can be omitted? If "legally" possible, fine: the less the better.WeHaWoe 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I dislike center align in most cases. I just saw the all CC licenses were center align. It doesn't matter, though. The icons I left at standard size but these too can be different. Rocket000 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The icons aren't legally required at all. The only thing we can't do is modify the official CC ones (well, we can since they themselves are CC, but they tell us not to. So no pink CC icons ;) Rocket000 10:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As the "CC" is quite far from being well-recognised (except by wikipedians and other "open source" people), it's even better not to have it (I only was afraid that it might be required by CC, when linking to their webpage in a way we do).
Slightly off-topic here, but would it be OK to set just one single link, omitting the extra-one to the WP explanation of "creative commons"? I mean, if at all this has to be written fully in the Template, use just Creative Commons Attribution 3.0? (I'D prefer CC Attribution 3.0). From that single page, they do link to everything which is relevant (and about which most donators will not ever care: they'd rather donate because they trust someone, as long as it is not too much effort and time consuming). Besides, if now I am not careful, I open the description of CC in the enWP article instead of the license and feel (maybe) fed up when arriving (after having waited for a while that their servers would serve me at all ;). WeHaWoe 15:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done But I left it as "Creative Commons" instead of CC because it's more recognizable. Rocket000 13:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugs[edit]

  • Call me trouble finder: When using the weblink in the "hidden" wiki-way, the display ("see here") is duplicated. Can this be repaired? WeHaWoe 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Everything fixed. How is it now? Rocket000 08:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Already fixed by rocket. WeHaWoe 09:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • According "Gallery" function, the template is not (yet) recognised as a "cc-by-template".
@rockett: As this now is the only thing missing, what would have to be done to arrange this? Or would those friendly bots which create the horrifying "Not licensed" warnings recognise such file as "licensed" however? I'd very much like to give it a trial run, and Lewis (whom I respect a lot) later had made clear that he did not really mean we should not do it. But of course I can't offer it if, when used, evoques trouble for the uploader. What do you think about? WeHaWoe 09:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I meanwhile learned from Rocket that "category=" parameter prevents the tagged file from being categorized. ;) -- I just had copy+pasted what I'd found in the developer's sandbox ;) --

"How-To" for dummies[edit]

I'm to stupid to understand what you meant by {{User:Name/License}}, and I suppose most non-wikipedians wouldn't understand either. Can you please just show me by licensing Image:Pink CC.gif that way? (even if it's reverted later, I see from the history what would have to be done.WeHaWoe 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not. You would use it like how you pasted {{User:Rocket000/Sandbox}} on this page. That's all I meant. That's call transclusion. Rocket000 07:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So, where will the template finally be "hosted"? Will it stay a private template (at, say: "User:Rocket000/RocketSSuperCC", (I mean, /Sandbox sounds somewhat depreciating ;) or wouldn't it rather make sense to offer it as an official alternative for cc-by s (after its finished, minimum bi-lingual, checked for a while and then discussed by the community, of course)? -- So, I do not feel to be in a hurry, but I ask about principal usefulness of this suggestion.
BTW: Where would I have to place my German translation? I'll be back tomorrow (around UT 06::00) I suppose. WeHaWoe 14:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Soo sorry, I just now edited here without even have looked at your great job! Big Thanks! (On SVGs, I'm afraid that I feel to old to learn how to do them -- I'm very reluctant to set up new programs to my PC which, BTW, isn't young any more, either.) I'm going to have the GIFs removed tomorow. Best, Wolfgang -- WeHaWoe 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I can delete them for you if you want. Rocket000 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I was thinking I would move a copy of this license to various user subpages after customizing it with their name, website, and anything else. Remember, they aren't going to be using this license itself. Rocket000 13:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, on people I headhunt, this would be my job. and I' in contact with a few newbies to commons+upload whom I would propose it, and they'd for sure prefer that friendly template with some PR in it proposed by someone who, at least whe editing in articles and giving hints, knows How-to... (at the moment, I'm somewhat proud of recent cooperation with an new-to-wikipedia editor. She would be more than glad about our (yours+my) "baby" as soon as it runs. See this versioncompare on our recent efforts. It is German, of course, but shows what 2 people can do in an article if "in tune". I just today gave her a clear+simple "how-to" for more Uploads, but unaware that the display-bug is fixed [I thought this might take some effort and you already had stopped working on it due to those sometimes unfriendly comments below], I proposed CC and guess that's what she'll do.

Maybe I still did not make myself understood: I think it shold be possible to "store" ("host"?) this template at an "official" (and, of course protected) place, so anybody CAN use it. And then let's wait and see what happens. WeHaWoe 10:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I missed this comment. Yes, feel free to more it to the template space. Rocket000 11:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk and Questions[edit]

Two questions:

  • Why use CC-by (which, by your own admission, nobody ever reads) when you can use a simple license text as we do in {{attribution}}? That takes about fifteen seconds to read and has exactly the same effect. It is also impossible to misunderstand, and doesn't carry the baggage that "Creative Commons" does. Making sure that people actually understand what they are consenting to is important (given the number of people we have had trying to revoke licenses, add incompatible restrictions, etc).
  • Is it really a good thing to spare people having to read the license and understand what they are consenting to? I'm gathering that this is the general idea of this.

Just saying. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • First_A: Almost-not-anybody ever reads anything.
  • They might be more inclined to read it if we were talking 50 words, rather than 50 volumes as CC-BY is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • First_B: According to what I've learned from recent COM:VP questions, CC seems to some extent "better" than Attribution, although I do not really understand those details. Anyways, "CC" is kind-of-supported by some organization, "Attribution" is not (as far as I know).
  • It's not supported by anyone. They had more lawyers writing it, perhaps, but that's OK, they were probably paid by the hour anyway (that's the best explanation I can think of which would cause 30 words to be turned into 30 libraries of license text). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • First_C: "CC" seems by far more favoured by WP.
  • Second, an MAIN: No, no, not at all (=totally disagree):
    People (I like to call them donators) should be guided to read the license instead of being guided to boring "wikipedian stuff" ABOUT CC+and_its_history-AND-links-to-all-and-any-and-everything which at this given time is brought to their attention prior to the license.

I hopefully could clarify (and successfully object to) your objections. WeHaWoe 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • K, I see your point now. I still think having a license so short that they couldn't help but read it (like my favourite {{Attribution}} is), is a much better option. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Baggage of Creative Commons?[edit]

I was not aware of such at all. Can someone give a link where such is explained to non-lawyers AND non-developers?? WeHaWoe 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What I meant by "baggage", is the term "Creative Commons" itself. There are so many licenses called "Creative Commons licenses", most of them not free, that it would be an easy mistake to see the term "Creative Commons" and assume that it was one of those many non-free licenses. Ergo, they might think that they are licensing it under one of the many non-free ones, and probably be sorely disappointed that they were not. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • CC licenses and what we call {{Attribution}} both work via copyright law. Without copyright, they wouldn't mean anything. These licenses are contracts with the public. They are merely statements of permission. The problem with CC or GFDL is someone else wrote the terms and by using one of these you are saying you agree to everything they say in the legal text regardless of if you read it or not. Some users may think they know what the licenses say, but really they don't. Then the question comes up: if they don't know what they are agreeing to, is the license still valid? Probably, but we don't want to even go near that question. Rocket000 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I do believe that an organisation like CC will be able to create contracts which are juristically more elaborate than simply "attribution" expressed by the few words in the template. How about moral rights of the author? I think that's one advantage of CC, isnt'it? I'd trust more in a non-profit organization than in myself, being a layman, if it's up to make a contract, especially with unknown. WeHaWoe 12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like bad luck for the project 8([edit]

In case, Lewis is right, it would indeed make no sense to work on on this for any longer. After the talks in COM:VP I was convinced that cc would be "best choice", and, if I recommend something, I'd dislike to recommend something of "second rate".

As I was told by user:Raymond (by mail) that probably nobody would ever want to improve on the CC template which is in used too often for allowing any experiments. As I had explained on COM:VP, it is unfortunately "kind of second rate", concerning usability by professionals. That's why I tried to suggest an alternative, which does the same, but respects the needs of artists and does not chat too much, but brings things to the point.

I would however like to read more than one opinion on this, before we're going to delete this page+project (or hide it in some archive). WeHaWoe 04:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind changes, see below. WeHaWoe 12:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want to do here. If you want to improve the Creative Commons templates you can use {{editprotected}} to ask an admin to make changes for you if they are protected. If you want to make a single template which uses parserfunctions to generate the appropriate text based on several parameters, you don't need anyone's permission to do so (though I would have it sanity-checked before letting anyone use it). Perhaps you could explain better what you mean? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 10:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
OK so that's what this whole page is for - facepalm. I just don't see the need for this, and I don't understand why "user-editable" is a much-needed feature. I guess it could be useful so people can more easily use personal licenses, but I don't understand how that necessitates all this agonizing. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to explain above as well as I could.
If "facepalm" ist as explained in http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=facepalm (my favourite LEO doesn't have it), I meanwhile regret to have you invited for "brainstorming". WeHaWoe 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In case, YOU (Mike.Hammer.L~) created the actually used cc-by-template, this would make a difference: I would have been stupid to ask your opinion. So Sorry. WeHaWoe 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested that you should stop working on it. To my mind, the idea of making a template that is easy to understand and attractive to people who want to donate images is a fundamentally good one. My point was that we should start with a simple attribution template and then add a few fields to it; a simple licensing text similar to that used in {{Attribution}} is impossible to misunderstand. Using CC-BY is a bad place to start, but that doesn't mean we should not start at all. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't suggest stopping a probably useless work, it was me, as I dislike waisting manpower (and, please, pass my excuses to Rocket whom I possibly kind-of seduced to get involved).

This file is copyrighted[edit]

I like that: This file is copyrighted. It is licensed by its author under the Creative Commons Attribution. In short: You are free to redistribute and modify this work provided that you credit the author. It both acknowledges that copyright is a fundamental right and that the author has explicitly chosen to put in under a free license. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From offside deTalk[edit]

(Relevant parts from that offside-talk (whwö/Rockett) inserted by copy+paste, before having deleted obsolete stuff)

[...] I meanwhile think we should not have but one possibility to insert links, and even remove text = as that might lead to over-advertising and consequently to otherwise avoidable troubles in WP. I note this here first, as you hopefully would come here and I prefer your opinion as "first choice", as you also do the work ;))

Besides, I meanwhile got the OK from CC by mail that our template correctly claims for CC and the single link is "perfect" -- in case it's of any use to you / the project, i forward it (to wherever needed).

cu, Wolfgang WeHaWoe 11:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the text parameter. (If they really wanted to they can add another line themselves.) It looks good to me. [...] Rocket000 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (Note: There was one additional possibility to insert text which might have provoked inappropriate advertising --WeHaWoe 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Could you, when passing by next time, show me what to do that the en-display can be switched to German and French display? I think one just has to put some tag into the /Pink_CC page, right?
    I suppose I start the /Pink_CC/fr subpage tomorrow anyways. -- WeHaWoe 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
New questions
  • You did not yet answer my question on /Testsite: Is the category "cc-by" for sure added by the template, and the non-display in the "gallery" tool just a bug of that tool? I mean this.
    • Yes it will add the category, but only on image pages and only if you don't override it! ;) By including |category= you effectively set the category to nothing. The only reason I add this to my example was to avoid adding my sandbox to the category. Rocket000 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What does "noinclude" do?
    • Everything between <noinclude> and </noinclude> will not be included when you use the template (usually for documentation purposes. Rocket000 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • But mainly: What has to be done, that a user swiching to the other language would see the template with the insert-texts filled in? Would this be very complicated to be managed? Now the language switch just opens this page, if you'd come from Pink_CC -- that's why I took it out and made a copy of the former version at /Preserve (and wrote a BOLD Warning in thatone that it should not be used. Sometimes I think I talk to idiots: Having written to two people clear and in German, that I put ONS evaluation sample in ONE of their pics, and they please should upload further files with a standard CC template only, both used the pink one for other pics. Anyways it shows that they liked it.
    • Yeah, that would be a little complicated to do. We don't do that on any of our other templates because of it being too complicated. Rocket000 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(Inserted by copy+paste. --WeHaWoe 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Trial run[edit]

I have meanwhile changed my mind in so far as I'd like to have a trial run. WeHaWoe 12:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Actual versions of the template are tagging...

Some cleanup done. --WeHaWoe 09:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Some more WeHaWoe 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to make it official?[edit]

Well, it sure has come a long ways, do you think it's time it let out into the wild (i.e. move it to the template namespace)? Rocket000 12:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's almost time. Let's do it tomorrow. I below my text from self-revert, just now (had'n noticed your posting)WeHaWoe 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not cope with it. However I'd like to "sleep at least once over" my recently added comments+translations (I still have to improve on de and fr, for the mail address thing) before begging you to do so. ;) -- WeHaWoe 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not even today. I had an awful night, feel smashed, and there is to be done some little improvement of the texts. Tomorrow 5th June anything from UT 10:00 on will be OK. in any case (High Noon im my country ;) WeHaWoe 07:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Rockett, it's up to you now to get our baby running (or, at least, crawling ;)
I note that again the gallery tool declares tagged pics as untagged, but hope this will be self-healing when the template is in the proper template space. I hope that my yesterday's remark on "High Noon" was understood as a bitter joke regarding expected objections by the community. Of course, please do the "outing" at any time you like. ;) Best, Wolfgang --WeHaWoe 09:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)